The 1938-40 Graham is a popular topic in the auto history media because of the car’s infamous “sharknose” styling. What gets little, if any, attention is that even if the design had not been so polarizing, Graham made other big mistakes which likely doomed it as an automaker. Let’s take a deeper look.
The car was introduced in the 1938 model year as a last-ditched effort to revive the financially struggling automotive operations of the Graham-Paige Motors Corporation (Dorrington, 2012). Instead, sales tanked and the Graham brand disappeared with the advent of World War II.
Amos Northup of the Murray Corporation designed the Graham. Marketeers referred to the styling as the “Spirit of Motion,” but it soon was dubbed the “sharknose” because of the radically thrust-forward grille and headlights.
One may be most struck by the aggressive shape of the grille and headlights, but also note the bulging front fenders and little “tongue” at the sharknose’s base. This is a 1939 supercharged two-door coupe (courtesy Portland Art Museum).
The bizarreness of the styling is surprising because Graham had previously excelled in this area. The brand’s high point was its 1932 Blue Streak Eight, which was a leader in one of the biggest trends of that decade — the streamlined look. That car had also been designed by Northup, whose company had long supplied bodies to Graham (auto editors of Consumer Guide, 1992, 2006).
Unfortunately, the Blue Streak came out just as the Great Depression was bottoming out. The only consolation is that Graham’s 1933 output, which fell to under 11,000, was in the same ballpark as normally higher-producing independents such as Nash.
Graham ads for 1933 rightly bragged about how its “Blue Streak” styling introduced the previous year had been widely copied. The new look included skirted fenders as well as a slanted-back grille and windshield (Old Car Advertisements).
Perhaps Graham’s increasingly desperate financial plight in the second half of the 1930s led the design team to try too hard to come up with something that grabbed the public’s imagination.
Graham struggled for survival before the sharknose
With some refashioning, the sharknose plausibly could have become a serviceable design. However, it likely would not have saved Graham by itself.
Part of the problem was timing — the new design came out during a sharp recession in 1938. In addition, Graham was already in a weak condition. As you can see from the graph below, the automaker’s output had not bounced back from the depths of the Great Depression’s nearly as well as first-tier independents such as Hudson, Nash and Studebaker.
Of the second-tier independents, Graham’s performance was sandwiched between Willys and Hupmobile. By 1937 Willys output rebounded to almost 64,000 — before collapsing the next year and never recovering. Meanwhile, Hupmobile tracked fairly closely to Graham up until 1935, whereupon it took a fatal dive.
Not shown is Reo, whose output fell to under 5,000 units in 1932 and stuck at that low level until the automaker exited the passenger-car business in 1936 (auto editors of Consumer Guide, 1992, 2006).
Not surprisingly, these and other smaller independent automakers started to look at merger possibilities as their prospects for going it alone diminished. Nothing came out of those talks except an agreement whereby Graham would purchase Rio bodies in 1936-37 (Dorrington, 2012).
Graham’s larger models in 1936-37 used a Reo Flying Cloud body. These cars were crucial to stabilizing total output because an entry-level model using an old Graham body sold poorly. Click on image to enlarge (Old Car Brochures).
The agreement with Reo allowed Graham to maintain output at around 18,000 units per year, but in 1936 the automaker still lost $1 million (auto editors of Consumer Guide, 1992, 2006). Leigh Dorrington wrote that as of 1937, Graham’s “financial situation remained precarious” (2012, p 69).
Graham throws wrong Hail Mary pass at a bad time
In an effort to revive the automaker, company president Joseph Graham invested a half million dollars if his own money on a new lineup for 1938 (auto editors of Consumer Guide, 1992, 2006). Unfortunately, his timing was bad. Even if he had come out with a blockbuster design, it likely would have had trouble selling well due to a recession so deep that total industry output fell by 51 percent.
That said, the sharknose was an unmitigated disaster. Graham output dropped by 71 percent in 1938, which was the worst of any independent except for Willys. Even worse, Graham was one of only a few automakers whose sales didn’t rebound in 1939.
Ironically, Graham might have done better if it had given its cars more evolutionary changes in 1938-39 rather than coming out with an expensive — and obviously risky — new design. Click on image to enlarge (Old Car Brochures).
To survive, Graham needed a different strategy. However, the automaker clearly chose the wrong one. A key problem was that Graham essentially bet everything on a styling exercise. Even if it the sharknose had been well received, it still would have been quickly eclipsed by bigger automakers who could afford more frequent and aggressive restylings.
The Graham needed to offer functional advantages that gave it a more solid niche. Those advantages needed to be important enough to compensate for the danger of buying a potential “orphan.” Aside from an optional supercharged six-cylinder engine, Graham didn’t have all that much to distinguish itself.
In contrast, both Studebaker and Nash revived their fortunes by going downmarket in the late-30s and early-40s with new designs that offered meaningful functional advantages over Big Three competition.
The 1939 Studebaker Champion pioneered the “family compact” while the 1941 Nash 600 offered an unusually light-weight unitized body that gave it a fuel-economy advantage over Big Three cars (Old Car Advertisements).
Graham moved out of lower-premium price class
The Graham’s styling is so outrageous that it distracts attention from another reason why production fell from an already meager 18,219 units in 1937 to only 5,020 in 1938. With the introduction of the sharknose, Graham no longer offered a car with a list price well under $1,000.
Graham management may have felt compelled to counterbalance relatively low volume with a higher profit per car, but the graph below illustrates the riskiness of that strategy.
From 1930-37 Graham generated 75 percent of its volume from cars listing for under $1,000. I grant you that prices increased over that time period. But even in 1937, the entry-level Crusader series was priced $690-$795. This was in the same ballpark as a top-end Ford, Chevrolet and Plymouth. So too was the Crusader’s size (111-inch wheelbase), power (70 bhp) and weight (around 2,700 pounds).
The next step up in Graham’s model hierarchy was the Cavalier. In size (116-inch wheelbase), power (95 bhp), weight (around 2,950 pounds) and price ($850-to-$935) this series competed most directly against six-cylinder models from Pontiac, Dodge and Studebaker.
If Graham had kept its market position in 1938, its base senior series, the Cavalier, would have competed directly against the Pontiac Six in price ($942 for the touring sedan), power (85 bhp) and size (117-inch wheelbase) (Old Car Brochures).
For 1937, all of Graham’s supercharged models were priced over $1,000, with the long-wheelbase Series 120 Custom topping the lineup at $1,190. That car competed most closely with the Buick’s mid-level Century series in price, although the Graham had a six-inch shorter wheelbase and 14 less bhp. The Century also had an eight rather than a six, but the Series 120 was around 550 pounds lighter. Only 200 cars were produced.
If Graham had sought to boost sales, it arguably should have maintained its market position by only increasing prices as much as its competitors. Instead, the automaker went in the opposite direction. Graham exited both the low-priced field and the bottom-end of the premium-priced fields simultaneously.
The entry-level 1938 Grahams were priced similarly to the Buick Special. Supercharged models went up against the Buick Century (bottom image), where they were outmatched in features (OldCarAdvertisements, Old Car Brochures).
Graham tried to compete with Olds and Buick eights
The sharknose was bigger and heavier than recent Grahams. Weight for the base model ballooned to 3,250 pounds — around 300 more than the 1937 Cavalier and almost 600 pounds more than a Crusader. This was partly because the wheelbase was stretched to 120 inches.
At $1,025, the lowest-priced Graham went for slightly more than the Oldsmobile six ($995) but was less than a Buick Special ($1,047). A better-trimmed model listed for $1075, which was close in price to the Olds eight ($1,107). Against that car Graham had a 6 bhp advantage but a four-inch-shorter wheelbase.
Where Graham was most outmatched was at the top of its lineup. The automaker’s ads argued that the supercharged version of its six offered comparable performance to an eight but with better fuel economy. Even so, that came at higher prices, which ranged from $1,198 to $1,320. This was above the Oldsmobile eight and in the same ballpark as Buick’s mid-range Century.
The problem is that the Century arguably offered “more car for your money” than the Graham. It had a six-inch-longer wheelbase and an eight-cylinder engine that pumped out 141 bhp versus the Graham’s 116 bhp. The Century still weighed more, but it was down to 430 pounds.
Graham may not have helped itself by ads emphasizing that its cars cost “only a little more than the lowest!” That might have made sense in the past, but it stretched credulity for a lineup whose base models now cost upwards of $300 more than a Chevrolet, Ford or Plymouth.
Graham had far and away the biggest price increases
To offer a clearer sense of how the market was moving, the graph below compares list prices of 1937 and 1941 models. The lowest-priced brands saw meaningful increases between 1937-41 whereas premium-priced brands tended to hold the line — Graham being the biggest exception.
For 1941 Graham only offered the Hollywood, which was a narrow range of models based upon a Cord 810/812 body. Prices were cut from 1940, when the lowest-priced sharknose could be had for $995 and the Hollywood was a range-topping $1,250.
One might arguably use 1940 prices instead, because that was the last year of the sharknose. However, I wanted to show how Nash cut its prices with the new entry-level 600. That made more sense than Graham’s strategy.
What was salvageable about the snarknose’s design?
The sharknose may have been a losing cause, but as a thought experiment let’s brainstorm how it could have been at least somewhat more successful. A good place to start would be to double down on the design’s single best idea — a two-door coupe that offered a then-innovative, thin-pillar design.
The Graham also had some other interesting ideas, such as high-mounted taillights and the potential to eliminate running boards, which was done in 1939.
The illustration from a Graham brochure shown below does not do justice to a two-door “combination coupe.” Whereas the four-door sedan looked bulky with its more traditional door frames, the coupe had a clean, modern look.
For 1939 Graham also offered a two-door sedan with the same thin-pillar design. The main difference was that the C-pillar was moved around a half foot farther back over the rear wheels.
1939 Graham four-door sedan (top image), two-door sedan (middle) and two-door coupe (Old Car Brochures)
The longer greenhouse of the two-door sedan presumably allowed more back-seat legroom than the coupe.
Even so, Graham marketing emphasized that the coupe had room for six passengers and that the back seat was “full width.”
Interior of two-door coupe versus four-door sedan (Old Car Brochures).
Perhaps this meant the seat was moved far enough forward so the rear-wheel wells didn’t intrude on hip room.
A cut-away of the four-door sedan shows a huge amount of rear-seat legroom, so moving the seat around six inches forward would appear to be doable. Indeed, this anticipated postwar sedan design.
Fake 1938 Graham four-door sedan. Click on image to enlarge (base illustration courtesy Old Car Brochures).
Fake design tones down sharknose in looks and bulk
The fake design shown above turns the coupe into a four door. Meanwhile, the wheelbase is reduced half a foot to 114 inches. Model names — Crusader and Cavalier — are carried over and list prices are similar to the previous year. Prices for the supercharged version of the Cavalier are dropped to under $1,000 and the top-of-line Series 120 Custom is discontinued.
Northup’s basic shape is toned town in key ways. The bulbous front fenders are shrunk and reshaped. Just as importantly, the angle of the thrust-forward grille is significantly reduced and its wrap-around wings are moved below the side trim. In addition, the car’s height is lowered roughly three inches and any vestige of running boards is eliminated.
Of course, the front fenders would have to be further reshaped to fit conventional sealed-beam headlights, which the industry switched to in 1940.
Graham might have been in better financial shape to make that change because our scenario would have spent less on body styles. Only a four- and two-door sedan would have been offered, with both using the same roofline.
General Motors succeeded with its own sharknose
The downside of the fake Graham is it would have deprived the world of one of the most memorable American automotive designs of all time. In addition, three decades later General Motors might not have been inspired to mimic the “Spirit of Motion” with its 1973 Chevrolet Monte Carlo.
Indeed, Curbside Classic commentator Barko (2014) suggested — presumably tongue-in-cheek — that the Monte Carlo head designer “was ferried to scout meetings during the War in his Dad’s 1939 Graham.” Barko also rendered his own fake design — a sharknose with landau roofline and a Monte Carlo nameplate. Do take a look (go here). Then check out my fake 1976 Monte Carlo, where I try to tone down its sharkiness.
The real Monte Carlo sold extremely well — even if it looked “downright bizarre, like the victim of a botched breast and hip augmentation,” as Paul Niedermeyer (2014) memorably put it. Unfortunately for Graham, the Big Three have long been able to get away with exercises in stylistic excess that have sunk independent automakers.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on Nov. 1, 2019 and expanded on Jan. 15, 2021 and Feb. 10, 2023. Dimensions, prices and production figures were drawn from Dorrington (2012) and the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006). Figures used in “Model year production of major independents, 1930-41” graph were from the 1993 edition of the Encyclopedia of American Cars; figures from “Graham model-year production, 1930-40” were calculated from production figures for individual models included in the 2006 edition. Graham production figures do not always align in the two graphs, perhaps because some annual totals were calendar rather than model year. The “List prices, 1937 versus 1941” graph does not include low-volume, high-priced body styles such as limousines, four-door convertibles and wagons.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
One could point to a number of car designs that represented the turning point where foreign automakers began to outshine Detroit in the late-60s and early-70s. The first-generation Jaguar XJ strikes me as particularly important. […]
Dick Teague nervously checked his fly and centered his tie as he heard the entourage of AMC executives march down the hallway toward his design studio. He’d made many presentations over two decades but had […]
The Consumer Reports 1975 Buying Guide was fairly positive about imported cars but cautioned about dealer service. The annual guide, which was published in December 1974, noted that some foreign brands had only a fraction […]
4 Comments
When I survey the front ends of most 1938 automobiles, very few were attractive. The Graham Sharknose is an acquired taste; however, it is more elegant than the barrel-noses of the 1938 Chrysler and Imperial. Many 1938 car front fender / grill / headlight treatments were downright ugly. I think the designers were trying to embrace streamlining yet trying to be distinctive from the competition. Graham in its pricing category was only trying to be unique while maintaining or increasing sales. But like the styling excesses of the 1961 Chrysler Corporation full-size cars, the Graham for 1938 was a step too-far for most medium-price car buyers. A much safer bet was a Pontiac or Buick in terms of resale value a couple years down the road. The most attractive 1938 car built by an American automaker is the Bill Mitchell-designed Cadillac 60 Special, in my opinion. One item that did not get much emphasis, was that Grahams had thoughtful engineering and quality assembly; however, in trying to style a
a car that was as relatively successful as the “Blue Streaks”, it appears that the emphasis on style with the lack of resources to engineer a more competitive platform and Amos Northup’s death did not allow Graham-Paige duplicate the 1932 success. Add the economic downturn of 1938, the Graham was doomed.
The fake in not in any way an improvement over the existing design. That just made it extremely dumpy and almost comical.
I keep wondering why the “Sharknose” styling needs to be “salvaged”. Personally it’s never been that radical, but interesting. Unconventional, yes, but not criminally unattractive that it needs to be “salvaged”.
Was an Airflow better?
People mock the 74 Matador two door yet give a pass to the Monte Carlo, Torino, Elite, Toronado…
Thank you for finally calling out the MC. Ridiculous, baroque and a parody of a “luxury” car. As bad as any Stutz or Zimmer.
And after the clean, refined ’70-’72 models.
I don’t see the fake as being all that bad other than I’m seeing a lot of Morris Minor in it and I’m not sure if that style would scale up as well as the illustration hints it would.
The Monte Carlo’s original sin was using a coupe body meant for a 112″ wheelbase on a 116″ one, with the rear bumpers and axle lined up so that the extra 4″ that was meant for rear-seat room/cargo length in the Chevelle 4-door sedan/wagon/El Camino was reallocated to useless hood length.
I believe it was Life Magazine (or was it Look? Memory fails me.) back in 1939 did a two page spread showing an aerial view of every 1939 automobile made in America and on sale. For all those people today who love to loudly complain “all cars look alike anymore” from the height the picture was shot, it was the exact same story. You had to look very carefully, and have a pretty good knowledge of your cars to tell which was a Chevrolet, Ford, Plymouth, Buick, Chrysler, etc.
With one exception: The Graham. Which stuck out so much, that at an altitude of a couple hundred feet, it was clear which car was the Graham.
When I survey the front ends of most 1938 automobiles, very few were attractive. The Graham Sharknose is an acquired taste; however, it is more elegant than the barrel-noses of the 1938 Chrysler and Imperial. Many 1938 car front fender / grill / headlight treatments were downright ugly. I think the designers were trying to embrace streamlining yet trying to be distinctive from the competition. Graham in its pricing category was only trying to be unique while maintaining or increasing sales. But like the styling excesses of the 1961 Chrysler Corporation full-size cars, the Graham for 1938 was a step too-far for most medium-price car buyers. A much safer bet was a Pontiac or Buick in terms of resale value a couple years down the road. The most attractive 1938 car built by an American automaker is the Bill Mitchell-designed Cadillac 60 Special, in my opinion. One item that did not get much emphasis, was that Grahams had thoughtful engineering and quality assembly; however, in trying to style a
a car that was as relatively successful as the “Blue Streaks”, it appears that the emphasis on style with the lack of resources to engineer a more competitive platform and Amos Northup’s death did not allow Graham-Paige duplicate the 1932 success. Add the economic downturn of 1938, the Graham was doomed.
The fake in not in any way an improvement over the existing design. That just made it extremely dumpy and almost comical.
I keep wondering why the “Sharknose” styling needs to be “salvaged”. Personally it’s never been that radical, but interesting. Unconventional, yes, but not criminally unattractive that it needs to be “salvaged”.
Was an Airflow better?
People mock the 74 Matador two door yet give a pass to the Monte Carlo, Torino, Elite, Toronado…
Thank you for finally calling out the MC. Ridiculous, baroque and a parody of a “luxury” car. As bad as any Stutz or Zimmer.
And after the clean, refined ’70-’72 models.
I don’t see the fake as being all that bad other than I’m seeing a lot of Morris Minor in it and I’m not sure if that style would scale up as well as the illustration hints it would.
The Monte Carlo’s original sin was using a coupe body meant for a 112″ wheelbase on a 116″ one, with the rear bumpers and axle lined up so that the extra 4″ that was meant for rear-seat room/cargo length in the Chevelle 4-door sedan/wagon/El Camino was reallocated to useless hood length.
I believe it was Life Magazine (or was it Look? Memory fails me.) back in 1939 did a two page spread showing an aerial view of every 1939 automobile made in America and on sale. For all those people today who love to loudly complain “all cars look alike anymore” from the height the picture was shot, it was the exact same story. You had to look very carefully, and have a pretty good knowledge of your cars to tell which was a Chevrolet, Ford, Plymouth, Buick, Chrysler, etc.
With one exception: The Graham. Which stuck out so much, that at an altitude of a couple hundred feet, it was clear which car was the Graham.